D7200 Officially Announced(link)

[JR1]

Stick with your D7100. In my view, for most photographers, the difference compared with the new D7200 is simply a matter of splitting hairs. The camera manufacturing industry is no different to most others. I'm also a fly-fisherman and the marketing rubbish that one reads about a company's latest rod is simply bait to catch the suckers. The same applies to software updates.

100% agree

[JR1]

If the ISO performance is in fact improved by two stops, well that's pretty awesome and would put it on par or better with the D810. Third, improved AF is always a good thing.

1. Improved AF, new washing powder always washes whiter than the previous version, so with 500 new improved powders over 30 years we should all be blinded by the whiteness !!!!!!

2. Here we go again, wrongly comparing a crop with FF sensor

3. Two stops extra ISO, er, where

[Mike Buckley]

3. Two stops extra ISO, er, where

It's explained in this chart that Dan provided in the second post of the thread. Actually, it's two stops added to the high end and one stop "artificially" added to the low end, totaling three stops if you want to look at it that way.

[ajohnw]

The low light focusing is interesting but doesn't mean much unless the sensor pattern that can use it is mentioned. Might just be the centre spot etc.

To be honest when I bought my D7000 I didn't feel that the D7100 was worth the extra cost and expected Nikon to make a bigger jump at some point as Canon do on one of their crop models. It doesn't look like the D7200 is it to me.

John
-

[JR1]

It's explained in this chart that Dan provided in the second post of the thread. Actually, it's two stops added to the high end and one stop "artificially" added to the low end, totaling three stops if you want to look at it that way.

Just goes to prove NEVER BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ

I have shown 100 shots in an above post on a D7100 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT 33

AND they have not SHOWN THE full ISO range of the D7100 have they ...............

ISO sensitivity range 100-6400 (H1 and H2 expansion up to 25,600 equiv)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100


Not looking so good now is the 7200

[Nicks Pics]

I disagree

The main problem is that people rarely SPEND on a decent card, buy a top end extreme pro card and you will have NO problems with the D7100, unless you shoor RAW and that is out for sports. Buy a cheap £40 / £30 card and that slows the D7100 down. I shoot a LOT of sports on the 7100 and "I" have never had a problem with the JPG buffer




CHEAP card buffer clearing




FAST card

How many shots do you NEED, that is 100 see the times on the stopwatch, 18 seconds of continuous shooting, how often do you need to shoot for 18+ seconds !!!!

For sports photographers, no, the D7100 shouldn't be a problem because I've heard most sport photographers shoot jpeg, but wildlife photographers often like to shoot RAW, so, an expanded buffer could be helpful.

[Stagecoach]

but wildlife photographers often like to shoot RAW, so, an expanded buffer could be helpful.

Exactly, we do not all have the same priorities.

[Stagecoach]

I am confused as to why the ISO would affect the capture speed. Maybe it does, I just hadn't heard of that before.

I'm assuming here Nick you are referring to the buffer capacity.

For those whose minds tend to favor conspiracy theories, then surely they tested a bunch of other cards and ISO settings and are quoting the best of the lot. In which case one could conclude that in fact ISO does effect fps.

An alternative view is that they only tested it at one set of conditions and stated those specific conditions due to the precise nature of how they conduct business. Based on my prior business dealings with Japanese technical people, I think they are just being precise about stating the test conditions. Each person can draw their own conclusions.

Based on my (limited) understanding ISO setting has nothing to do with processing downstream of the sensor and therefore nothing to do with frame rate nor buffer capacity. It is simply an electronic gain adjustment to the sensor circuitry.

I suspect they have based that statement due to a lower ISO image capture having a smaller file size to a higher ISO capture of the same image due to the noise. The noise also varies depending upon the lightness/darkness of an image.

Here's a link to one article that may explain why they have used the criteria in their spec;

http://petapixel.com/2009/12/22/why-...er-file-sizes/

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the link Grahame. That is interesting. On all my other bodies I'very shot uncompressed so never seen this phenomenon. Always had very consistent card capacity. 7100 doesn't offer uncompressed.

[mrinmoyvk]

Why do these companies keep on releasing new models with slightly better specs? There should be a poll where different features are given as options and let people world wide select the required features in their dream camera. It would be better if approximate price is also calculated depending upon selected features. Then let the camera company prepare a device with the specs combination which was selected by max people. Atleast everyone will get only what they want in their camera and not end up paying for 9 different features because 1 is most important to them.

[Stagecoach]

Why do these companies keep on releasing new models with slightly better specs?

So that those people that are in the market to upgrade from a 'lower' model get a better specification model in that price/class range than what's available now.

The D7200 is not necessarily built/marketed to persuade D7100 owners to run out and buy it.

Do you change you car model just because the manufacture has done a makeover of it?

[JR1]

So that those people that are in the market to upgrade from a 'lower' model get a better specification model in that price/class range than what's available now.

The D7200 is not necessarily built/marketed to persuade D7100 owners to run out and buy it.

Do you change you car model just because the manufacture has done a makeover of it?

On this occasion I am 100% in agreement with your comments, you speak a lot of sense.

Personally I think for the almost no overall improvement people would be better of making a killing and getting a 7100

[JR1]

For sports photographers, no, the D7100 shouldn't be a problem because I've heard most sport photographers shoot jpeg, but wildlife photographers often like to shoot RAW, so, an expanded buffer could be helpful.

BUT you have to remember that it will never happen until the upper range of cameras are improved also, so that the middle range does not encroach on the more expensive cameras, after all NO manufacturer is going to bring in a £2k camera almost as good as a D4 and have pros buying it instead, and so on.

[Stagecoach]

Why do these companies keep on releasing new models with slightly better specs?

So that those people that are in the market to upgrade from a 'lower' model get a better specification model in that price/class range than what's available now.

The D7200 is not necessarily built/marketed to persuade D7100 owners to run out and buy it.

Do you change you car model just because the manufacture has done a makeover of it?

On this occasion I am 100% in agreement with your comments, you speak a lot of sense.

It's always useful to look out of the box at times and consider who benefits from the market. So have you changed your view from that in your previous thread on the D7200?

Well that was a total waste of time bringing THAT camera out

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/03/02/ni...mparison.aspx/

[Shadowman]

For those with a D7100, are you even interested in purchasing the D7200 and if so what is it about the D7100 that you've found limiting? Do you find yourself one step away from going FF?

My last DSLR purchase was in 2012 and I'm still pushing the camera to its limits to see how well it can perform.

[Mike Buckley]

For those with a D7100, are you even interested in purchasing the D7200 and if so what is it about the D7100 that you've found limiting?

I'll put a little bit different slant on that. I own a D7000 and there is nothing about the D7100 or D7200 that compels me to upgrade. I think that's mostly because of where the industry is in the technology life cycle. As Manfred recently posted, we shouldn't expect to see the rapid change in the next 15 years that we saw in the last 15 years.

[JR1]

For those with a D7100, are you even interested in purchasing the D7200 and if so what is it about the D7100 that you've found limiting? Do you find yourself one step away from going FF?

My last DSLR purchase was in 2012 and I'm still pushing the camera to its limits to see how well it can perform.

I could get one, why, I use my D7100 along with the other gear I have, I often use the extra reach of the crop, with the siggy 150-600 AND siggy 1.4 converter, the 100 shot JPEG buffer is more than enough, even I don't shoot 100 at a time, limitations, none, also used in low light.

I did have a Canon 60D which was better in low light at gigs, but even if the 7100 was the only camera I have I would NOT upgrade it for the almost nothing extra 7200

The majority of the shots on www.jrs-photography.co.uk were taken with the 7100

[Shadowman]

I'll put a little bit different slant on that. I own a D7000 and there is nothing about the D7100 or D7200 that compels me to upgrade. I think that's mostly because of where the industry is in the technology life cycle. As Manfred recently posted, we shouldn't expect to see the rapid change in the next 15 years that we saw in the last 15 years.

How quickly do you get to know the ins and outs of your camera? Three years in for me and I'm still picking up bits here and there. My interest to improve comes in waves and I can get quickly distracted when I find a good rhythm.

[Shadowman]

I could get one, why, I use my D7100 along with the other gear I have, I often use the extra reach of the crop, with the siggy 150-600 AND siggy 1.4 converter, the 100 shot JPEG buffer is more than enough, even I don't shoot 100 at a time, limitations, none, also used in low light.

I did have a Canon 60D which was better in low light at gigs, but even if the 7100 was the only camera I have I would NOT upgrade it for the almost nothing extra 7200

The majority of the shots on www.jrs-photography.co.uk were taken with the 7100

I think I've also reached the technological hurdle with an APS-C sensor camera, aside from a few fps and a stop or two with ISO, I don't expect much more other than improvements with video; and I rarely use my camera to shoot video.

[JR1]

I think I've also reached the technological hurdle with an APS-C sensor camera, aside from a few fps and a stop or two with ISO, I don't expect much more other than improvements with video; and I rarely use my camera to shoot video.

IF I didn't shoot for a living I would have JUST the D7100 or perhaps I would still have had the 7000 I sold to pay for it, before that I had the D7000 and that was really as good, I should have said that 99% of my shots on my site are the D7000 NOT the 7100